57% won't call their reps, according to a CNN online poll

[nadinbrzezinski]

two points on that.

1.- ONLINE poll, need I say more?

2.- People have given up... I realize voting does not matter any more... lesser of two evils and all that we do have a tyranny of a minority and a system that is highly dysfunctional. (That does not mean I will seat the election out... but it does not mean I think voting will do a tinkers damn of a difference)

But since people realize the system is rigged why bother? I actually get it... and that despair leads to OTHER means of getting a point made, some of them are peaceful, some are not. I am not telling people to go be violent, just stating a fact. But the time for pitchforks is coming... soon.

[Forkboy]

1. That's actually lower than I would have expected.

Shows how cynical I am. :)

[gateley]

6. Lower? Wouldn't that indicate you're optimistic, not cynical?

Or am I not getting it? :crazy:

[Forkboy]

15. "Won't call" is the key.

I'm cynical because I expected that even more people "won't call" their reps. A higher % would have reflected my expectation that less people care.

See? :)

[gateley]

19. Thanks. So basic. So over my tiny little brain. I get it now, though and

I agree. I wonder how many here, who expend vast energy complaining (justifiably) actually contact their reps. Too often, we're all "They HAVE to, they SHOULD, They MUST..." but as far as they get is to another thread.

Talk about cynical! :7

[nashville_brook]

23. that's actually not cynical...it's the nature of this kind of response.

only 56.7 % of voters turned out for the 2008 presidential election. that's the highest since 1968. when 60 % turned out.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

[hedgehog]

2. Wait - does that mean that 43% of registered voters are contacting

their reps? I think that beats the turnout in a Presidential election.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Yep... actually it is about that turnout.

Our turnouts are really low.

[Selatius]

17. Our turnouts are low because people aren't given choices.

In situations where there are stark contrasts between candidates running, voter turnout tends to be higher vs. Elections where candidates have trouble distinguishing themselves from each other on policy issues. For instance, we typically have no choice as far as moving away from free trade towards fair trade. No Democrat who supports fair trade has been able to beat better funded candidates in the primaries. This is but one example. Candidates who are less threatening to Wall Street tend to be better financed.

[emulatorloo]

24. There was a big choice in 2010. Voters made the wrong choices.

See the states that are now under Republican rule, like Wisconsin.

See the US House of Representives, where the teabaggers will not vote for any bill that contains Revenue Increases.

The Pelosi House would have put out a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling in a heartbeat.

We would not be in this situation, or having this conversation if Democrats controlled the House.

ON EDIT: I don't blame the voters -- Republicans promised "jobs jobs jobs," which they had no intention of delivering.

[gateley]

3. If that indicates 43% WILL, I think that's pretty good! More than

the amount of people who turn out to vote, no? And I wonder, when there isn't a hot topic in the news (or a Black man as President) how many people contact their reps regularly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Medicare saw faxes over a weekend

and letters and all that... I was hoping it would maybe, be higher, But I get it.

[gateley]

7. If it's a quantifiable increase over what they "regularly" receive

(and I'm including the Congress as well) I think that'll get their attention. If nothing more, the workers will be kvetching about all the extra pressure! :7

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I did send a fax and emails

but I think it will do nothing... like the medicare for all public option.. we are at a highly dysfunctional moment when we really don't matter.

It is despair that the system works any more.

Yes the workers will have more email to delete and faxes to shred... call me cynical

[gateley]

9. I send so many e-mails and call so often I've pared it down

to the essentials. My e-mails are only the subject line, no "message" in the body. They don't care about my 100 year old grandma dying of a treatable disease and living in squalor or if I can't get health care or whatever, they only care about votes and money (talk about cynical!)

So, my subject line reads: If you vote for/against X, I will financially support your opponent in the next election. I send them to lots of different reps/senators.

And when I phone I have a one-line script in front of me (because I tend to ramble) and say, please add me to the list that supports/opposes X, and if X does/doesn't vote in favor/against X, I will financially support his/her opponent in the next election.

If the e-mail form or the person answering the phone asks for my address or zip code, I tell them I'm currently not a constitute nt but am moving to their district/state in two months (or whatever) which is why I'm paying attention to their votes.

Yeah, I lie. :evilgrin:

[JI7]

10. only 57 percent ?

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. 43% will or have.

Higher % than bothers to vote, but being an online poll, could be anyone voting.

[liberalhistorian]

12. Well, in the case of my rep,

who happens to be the only rep in our entire state of SD, there's simply no point in it. She ousted our Dem rep last November and is a truly ignorant-and-proud-of-it teabagger darling. Every time she opens her mouth, I shake my head in disbelief. She simply WILL NOT LISTEN to you if you disagree with her in any way, and thinks she speaks for every single one of the state's residents, when she just barely won the election by not even two percentage points (thanks, redneck Rapid City area!). Anything contrary to what she wants and thinks, she just WILL NOT LISTEN. There is NO point in contacting her office. Nor is there any point in contacting the office of our equally dipshit senator "rising republican star" (gag!) John Thune. They simply refuse to believe you're a resident of the state if you disagree with them in any way at all.

[emulatorloo]

13. As you note it is an ONLINE POLL. Not worth anything, they are meaningless.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. To a point, as I noted if this is close to the truth

I get it... I actually get it very well. Some of the things neighbors have said in the very recent past reflect that despair. One will completely give up on voting any longer,

[emulatorloo]

18. As Ruby the Liberal notes, 43% will. That is higher than the percentage of people who vote.

[Obamanaut]

16. Also here, earlier-->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1581138

[FourScore]

20. Actually, If 43% of Americans said they would --

those are some pretty good numbers!! How many millions of people is that? Any math whizzes?

[emulatorloo]

21. Top Story at CNN: "Phones swamped, servers crash as voters slam Congress"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/26/congress.communications.jammed/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[nashville_brook]

22. by the numbers...i would consider 3-5% of "average voters" making a call

to be amazing response.

[Zen Democrat]

25. Why should I waste my time calling Ron Paul? He wants the government shut down permanently.

[TheKentuckian]

26. I'm calling even Dumbing II: Electric Bugaloo (aka Paul) and my worthless McTurtle

but not to cut the safety net. I'm giving them the usual do your duty and protect and serve the interests and needs of the people.

They don't care, McConnell hears only money for certain but he is soft and rankles at opposition. Staying relentlessly in his grill and keeping him stammering is workable but seldom does someone beside a politician or a mediabot have any shot other than by shout out.

Yeah, I call, email, and at times write the fuckers. I don't think it accounts for a lot but then we are at odds beyond much hope of reconciliation and they'd have little hope of my seeing it their way should our positions be reversed.